McDar Experiment

AND you are the first to exceed 200!!!

and still a Beserker!!

Mind you it does take a bit to go further than beserk

Hehe

Oh by the way I puzzled and puzzled when you said I think debertch was german for dirty old man and then the penny dropped we use debauched for that description....oh well I do get there in the end..sad or what!!

 

Well there is a different a "dirty old man" can still have some redeeming social values. But if someone is debauched they are normal best to be avoided.

A "dirty old man" is sexual flirtatious, but not usually considered dangerous. And you can be a "dirty old man" at 30 if you are flirting with a 20 year old.

Here is the officail definition from an American dictionary:

 

Is that

the definition for "dirty old man then"?

Ha

 

No, the "snippets" using the meta description is NOT due to using frames. A quick look at the search results shows that the meta description is being used even for the site in the number one position. They are not using frames.

I pay very close attention to what text Google is using for the "snippet"! If I see one of our pages come up and the "snippet" does not make sense or seem appealing. I make modifications on that page so it does. Afterall, it is the ONLY thing the searcher sees and often makes the difference of whether they will click on your link or just pass you by!

I cannot remember the last time I saw the mets description used.

 

I have found that Google will display a different "snippet" depending on the search term. If you have a lot of content they will grab and use the portion of the content that includes the search term.

So I wonder if they are also using the meta description when it is the most appropriate text matching the keyword or search term used.

Do a search for the site involved using some quite different search term if possible and see if they still use the same snippet.

 

NEW PAGE UPDATE:

The "New Page" sleeping-bags.htm

Search for "Sleeping Bags"
Position#n/a allinanchor:#n/a - 04/08/2004
position#104 allinanchor#32 - 04/09/2004
Postion#232 allinanchor:#n/a - 04/11/2004
Postion#193 allinanchor:#n/a - 04/12/2004

also important to note:
on 04/08/2004 the page came up for these searches.
Ledge Sleeping Bags #2
McDar Sleeping Bags #2
Deep Creek Sleeping Bags #2

Today:
Ledge Sleeping Bags #n/a
McDar Sleeping Bags #2
Deep Creek Sleeping Bags #1

 

Bob,

Looking at the same site searching for tents, number 15 in the results, their meta description is still being used.

Yes, what you are talking about is how it has most commonly occurred, but that is not what has been happening since yesterday.

 

NEW PAGE UPDATE:

The "New Page" sleeping-bags.htm

Search for "Sleeping Bags"
Position#n/a allinanchor:#n/a - 04/08/2004
position#104 allinanchor#32 - 04/09/2004
Postion#232 allinanchor:#n/a - 04/11/2004
Postion#193 allinanchor:#n/a - 04/12/2004
Postion#136 allinanchor:#n/a - 04/13/2004

also important to note:
on 04/08/2004 the page came up for these searches.
Ledge Sleeping Bags #2
McDar Sleeping Bags #2
Deep Creek Sleeping Bags #2

Today:
Ledge Sleeping Bags #n/a
McDar Sleeping Bags #2
Deep Creek Sleeping Bags #2
_____________________________________________________

I did a search on Google for site:www.compar.com +sleeping bags to try and determine if any of Bob's links have been discovered by Google. The results show only one page found. [edited to add: Bob did the search later and found 19 pages listed]

I think it will take a deep crawl before the New Page realizes the benifit of the majority of his links.

Actually, this will be a great search to add to my "daily ritual". If we can see movement of the New Page PLUS an increase in the number of Bob's links Google has discovered, it might give us more insight into the value of each additional link.

 

I just did this search and while Google only displays one page it reports 19 pages and give you the "If you like, you can repeat the search with the omitted results included." option. When you accept that option it shows 18 of the individual articles. So it has indexed just less than half of them so far.

 

WOW Bob,

Either I was totally BLIND or it has changed since this morning! - I can't believe I missed that...........

 

NEW PAGE UPDATE:

The "New Page" sleeping-bags.htm

Search for "Sleeping Bags"
Position#n/a allinanchor:#n/a - 04/08/2004
position#104 allinanchor#32 - 04/09/2004
Postion#232 allinanchor:#n/a - 04/11/2004
Postion#193 allinanchor:#n/a - 04/12/2004
Postion#136 allinanchor:#n/a - 04/13/2004
Postion#133 allinanchor:#n/a - 04/14/2004

also important to note:
on 04/08/2004 the page came up for these searches.
Ledge Sleeping Bags #2
McDar Sleeping Bags #2
Deep Creek Sleeping Bags #2

Today:
Ledge Sleeping Bags #n/a
McDar Sleeping Bags #2
Deep Creek Sleeping Bags #2
_____________________________________________________

number of Bob's links found:
19 - 4/13/2004
24 - 4/14/2004

 

Definately some kind of re-shuffling going on at google...

see the results for the new page on different datacenters

 

Hello everyone. I hope you don't mind me jumping in on this. Thank you mcdar for the info about this forum.

I'm still pretty new to seo (around 5 months), but I think this is a wonderful experiment that you have here. I have a couple of questions though. First, I'm not showing any backlinks for the site you are testing, where are you seeing these backlinks (the ones that compar placed)? Second, on your statistics that you are showing for positions versus anchor text, why has it all of a sudden gone to n/a?

Thanks

 

Hello bpal,

Welcome to the forum!

I do not know if Google has "credited" the new page with the baclinks yet but, if I search for site:www.compar.com +sleeping bags Google is showing the pages on his site with "sleeping bags" on it. (it shows which pages Google has crawled so far).

The fluctuations in both serp position and allinanchor position is a natural occurence when a page is new. This happens because Google's database is a combination of older cached versions of pages and new data found by the "freshbots". You may be familiar with seeing dates next to some listings.

Once a new page has been indexed (not dependent on freshbot ) it will "stick" in the results, even if it was not visited recently by the freshbot.

As this happens with new pages, it also happens with Google counting new links it has found to your site. The backlinks initially are counted as the freshbot reports them. Eventually, the info is INDEXED and therefore is in Googles memory or cache whether or not freshbot visits frequently.

It may be helpful to think of it in terms of our own short term and long term memory. To get information in our "long term memory" takes repetition (for most of us) that is why we study while in school (some of us).

Sorry if this does not make any sense as it is late and I am tired.

Caryl

 

Not at all

Welcome to this thread and the forum

There are some very good threads other than this one running here and the commentary by Compar [for his posts go to his profile] and others top draw stuff as are the tools that members have offered here

In fact the best tools to assist are here written by Shawn [God] and McDar [Almost God] so this forum has a much more technical base than others which seem to revolve around "gee I'm 20 today"!!!

 

Thanks for the warm welcome and the answers to my questions. I'm just hoping that this test has some good results. I've been trying to gather links a lot lately, and it's tedious, but rewarding. The results of all of this will help motivate me to keep gathering links with good anchor text I'm hoping. I just hope that my hard work will be enough to push me over the top and get some good serp results.

 

Something I was wondering about the tool. I just checked a site that had around 10 backwards links. Now it's showing in position number 2 for allinanchor, but when you look at the anchor text of the thinks, most of them don't have the search terms in them, or only have a partial term. Have you done any further testing on this, or is this just my newbness missing something?

 

I'm not an advocate of "banging on with finding links" as I don't think that the effort gives the rewards but I am an advocate of quality back linking on ones own site/sites and other links that "arrive" for you

For example if you go to McDars tool and pop in Ski France and the url www.ski-france-ok.com you will see that we are no 8 - now go into google and do the link: thing for this site and look at the links - they are all [less one] achieved using internal [to us] methods and [using McDars other tool http://www.mcdar.net/dance/index.php] we rank 4 on allinanchor and allintext and 1 and 2 for allinurl

The reason we don't rank higher overall is because I won't go out and get more links outside and we don't have the "authority" [read size] that others do - I think!

 

bpal,

I think that how Google comes up with a ranking on allinanchor: is as much of a mystery as their ranking in the regular serps. I will say though, the number of backlinks reported are NOT all of the backlinks being evaluated. Remember, Google only reports backlinks that are from pages of PR4 or greater. For the site you mention, there could be only 10 PR>4 links but hundreds of PR<4 links.

One of our competitors has 119 Backlinks reported by Google. However, another search revealed that they literally had over 4000 links coming from internal pages from a few other sites.

Also, the "new page" experiment shows zero backlinks, according to Google. However, we know that there are at least 50 solid links to that page. Those links won't be visible in Google searches until Google updates PR/Backlinks again.

It still will be interesting to see whether the page will recognize the full benefit of those links, PRIOR to the update. Or, will the update bring added value.

 

NEW PAGE UPDATE:

The "New Page" sleeping-bags.htm

Search for "Sleeping Bags"
Position#n/a allinanchor:#n/a - 04/08/2004
position#104 allinanchor#32 - 04/09/2004
Postion#232 allinanchor:#n/a - 04/11/2004
Postion#193 allinanchor:#n/a - 04/12/2004
Postion#136 allinanchor:#n/a - 04/13/2004
Postion#133 allinanchor:#n/a - 04/14/2004
Postion#108 allinanchor:#n/a - 04/15/2004

also important to note:
on 04/08/2004 the page came up for these searches.
Ledge Sleeping Bags #2
McDar Sleeping Bags #2
Deep Creek Sleeping Bags #2

Today:
Ledge Sleeping Bags #n/a
McDar Sleeping Bags #2
Deep Creek Sleeping Bags #2
_____________________________________________________

number of Bob's links found:
19 - 4/13/2004
24 - 4/14/2004
40 - 4/15/2004 (most datacenters report 40 but some as low as 31)